Nikki Haley's Presidency: A Nightmare We Must Avoid
Haley's enduring influence reveals a troubling acceptance of hawkish candidates and American voters' short memories. #NeverNikki
Jared Gould is Managing Editor of Minding the Campus at the National Association of Scholars, a research fellow at Speech First, and serves as a consultant for the Faith & Politics Institute. You can read his published works here and you can find him on Twitter (or X) @j_gould_ and Instagram @jar_gou.
Donald Trump’s America First agenda was cherished by conservatives for its non-interventionist approach and determination to cut hawkish politicians from the Republican Party. However, with polls showing even the slightest support for Nikki Haley, it seems these same “conservatives” have already forgotten their principles.
It is clear that the establishment favors a Haley presidency, but millions of conservative voters remain committed to Trump’s agenda. While the Republican primary is all but over, we must ensure that the nightmare scenario does not happen: a Haley nomination, or worse, presidency.
Dubious China Connection
Despite her current anti-China rhetoric, Haley actively collaborated with Chinese companies as South Carolina's governor from 2011 to 2015. As ABC News reported, in 2016 she praised Jushi, a “partially state-owned fiberglass company,” for establishing a manufacturing plant in South Carolina.
“South Carolina’s workforce has proven to the world that we can build planes, cars, tires and carbon fiber, and now because of … Jushi’s investment in Richland County, we are going to be making fiberglass products for one of the biggest companies in the market,” Haley said.
This deal — among others — placed her first among Republican governors involved with Chinese investments, bringing in over $565 million in 2015 alone. Just a few years later, however, the company committed severe environmental violations, resulting in fines exceeding $460,000 — if you are reading this after the U.S. has fallen because we elected Haley, that is a lot of money.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control documented over three dozen air and hazardous waste violations, leading to the temporary suspension of the company's air permit due to serious air pollution issues, according to The State.
If Haley's strategy for boosting the South Carolina economy involves welcoming a hazardous Chinese company to establish itself in the United States, her judgment is clearly flawed. Even more, it is doubtful she would abandon this approach as president.
War Profiteering
Haley’s cozy relationship with weapons manufacturers, a connection that has significantly enriched her after facing financial struggles following her tenure as Ambassador to the United Nations, is also alarming.
Described as “Dick Cheney in 3-inch heels,” Haley's connections include a role on the board of defense contractor Boeing and a consulting position for Prism Global Management, a New York-based investment fund linked to the defense industry. Her husband also founded a defense contracting firm — surprise, surprise.
These ties to weapon manufacturers would not be so alarming if Haley did not advocate for American involvement in Russia’s war against Ukraine. She has signaled that her policy as president would include providing additional funding to the European country (I wonder what kind of kickback she is receiving). In October of last year, Haley criticized members of her own party for not supplying additional funding to Ukraine — under the Biden administration the U.S. has forked over $75 billion. She backed her critique saying that the $75 billion already sent is only “3.5 percent of our national budget.”
Conservative voters have criticized this approach, however, when it involved Washington, D.C. swamp creature and insider trader Nancy Pelosi — she wanted to send blank checks to Ukraine. Why are these same voters giving Haley a pass? Are we truly so entrenched in party loyalty that we endorse flawed policies simply because they originate from our own party?
Perhaps some voters cling to the belief that under the right leadership, America can export its values through interventionism. But we have treaded the path of interventionism before and it has not worked.
Interventionism Built on Lies
In just a few short years, the American right has shifted from “America First” to being re-sold on the promise that American can intervene anywhere in the world, or, as Rand Paul puts it, be the world’s “sugar daddy.”
Haley’s cry for U.S. intervention in Ukraine, however, is nothing but echoes of protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where over 7,000 American lives were lost based on the false premise of “weapons of mass destruction.” Those weapons were never found — and with unfulfilled promises of regime change — how is the region been looking lately? Is it a flourishing democracy yet? How many more lives will be sacrificed for Lockheed Martin’s profits, I mean, Ukraine’s freedom? Likely, many more than were lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No doubt, Haley will sell American intervention with great enthusiasm. I can hear her speech now: your children are defending democracy — even as Ukraine bans the Orthodox Church.
But this eagerness for war reflects a lack of concern for America’s pressing needs: reindustrialization, education, crime reform, and more. As for Haley, it shows her detachment from the realities faced by ordinary Americans. Consider this: When Nikki Haley speaks of sending your children to war, does she envision her own child facing bullets alongside them? Probably not.
Instead, like other warmongers, she and her family may retreat to a mansion in New England, profiting from positions on weapon manufacturing boards while ordinary citizens bear the brunt of conflict, including outsourcing and job losses to China.
Postliberal Approach
Haley’s enduring influence serves as a poignant reminder of a broader issue plaguing American politics: the persistent embrace of hawkish candidates and the collective amnesia of the electorate. In her potential ascent to power, we risk perpetuating a cycle of interventionism and collusion with global powers that have often led to disastrous consequences.
Her trajectory echoes that of past establishment figures — Obama, Bush, Clinton, among others — whose tenures were marked by continued entanglement in foreign conflicts and questionable alliances. There’s little indication that Haley would diverge from this well-trodden path, particularly in her dealings with China or her approach to conflict resolution. Bomb them, she will probably say.
For those advocating for genuine societal “progress” towards the common good, we must reject the allure of Haley’s vision, which aligns all too comfortably with the entrenched consensus that the United States must assert itself aggressively on the global stage. Postliberal thought demands a departure from this interventionist mindset, urging a recalibration of priorities towards addressing domestic concerns and safeguarding our nation’s sovereignty.
To truly embody a postliberal order, we must dismantle the status quo of interventionism, sever ties with adversarial regimes like China, and redirect our energies towards nurturing our own nation’s well-being. Only by embracing a paradigm shift away from entrenched global engagement can we chart a course towards a more authentic and prosperous future.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! Now through the Lenten season, we are pleased to offer 50% off access to our patron-exclusive content. Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.